DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA 


.'•  -O 


.  .  v ,:  y--  ■.^.:'-‘^.C- 


AND  ITS  RELATIONS  TO 


•S'-  />  .jll/ 


THE  GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 


ISSUED  BY 


THE  WASHINGTON 
CHAMBER  OP  COMMERCE 


JANUARY,  1912 


V. 

>  .?! 
O'j*  j-'!  .V 


t 


Tw 


REMOT 


Ut,  I 

A 


(jji<AGg 


BOOKyrACKS  OfiElCE 
Facts  and  Arguments  Regarding  the  District 

of  Columbia  and  Its  Relations  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Government,  Compiled  and  Issued  by 
The  Washington  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  Congress 
shall  “exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever  over  such 
District  (not  exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by  session  of  par¬ 
ticular  States  and  the  acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.” 

As  is  well  known,  this  power  was  conferred  upon  Congress  for 
its  own  protection  and  in  order  that  the  legislative  and  executive 
functions  of  the  Government  might  be  carried  on  without  molestation. 

During  the  Revolution  Congress  was  repeatedly  compelled  to 
change  its  place  of  meeting  by  the  approach  of  the  British  troops. 
In  June,  1783,  it  was  obliged  to  leave  Philadelphia  by  a  demonstration 
of  a  body  of  the  dissatisfied  soldiers  of  the  Revolution;  and  as  the 
city  and  State  authorities  acknowledged  their  inability  to  afford  the 
necessary  protection,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  saw  the  neces- 
U  sity  for  giving  to  Congress  absolute  control  of  the  future  capital, 
wherever  it  might  be  located. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  a  detailed  statement  as  to  how  the 
national  capital  came  to  be  located  where  it  is.  It  is  sufficient  to  say 
that,  after  a  contest  of  seven  years  in  Congress,  and  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  no  less  than  twenty-two  sites  in  several  different  States,  and 
the  passage  by  one  House  of  a  bill  for  a  dual  capital,  with  a  pro- 
^  vision  that  Congress  shou.  m.eet  alternately  at  the  two  places,  it  was 
finally,  by  a  comprui  ’’se,  located  here  by  an  Act  passed  July  16,  1790. 

The  act  authorizt^d  President  Washington  to  appoint  three  Com¬ 
missioners  to  lay  out  and  define  the  boundaries  of  the  District,  and 
to  lay  out  the  city  on  such  a  plan  as  he  might  see  fit. 

In  order  to  carry  out  this  act,  Washington,  in  March,  1791,  made 
a  bargain  with  ^he  nineteen  owners  of  the  land  (mostly  covered  with 
forest  trees,  and  with  but  few  residents)  by  which  they  deeded  their 
lands  in  trust  to  tv/o  trustees,  with  an  agreement  that  he  should  select 


so  much  as  he  saw  fit — should  lay  it  out  as  he  chose ;  that  all  lands 
taken  for  streets,  avenues,  and  alleys  should  be  a  free  gift  to  the 
United  States  Government ;  that  the  land  selected  for  public  reserva¬ 
tions,  for  pul^lic  buildings,  parks,  etc.,  should  be  laid  out  into  squares 
and  lots,  to  be  divided  equally  between  the  original  proprietors  and 
the  Government. 

The  land  was  divided  thus : 

Total  number  of  acres  taken  for  the  city .  6,110.94 

Donated  to  the  United  States  for  avenues,  streets, 

and  alleys  .  3,606 

Donated  to  the  United  States,  10,136  building  lots.  .  982 

Bought  by  the  United  States  for  public  buildings 

and  reservations  .  541 


Total  number  of  acres  taken  by  the  United  States  5,129 


10,136  lots  given  back  to  former  owners 


981,94 


As  the  541  acres  for  public  buildings  and  reservations  were  re¬ 
quired  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  first  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  lots 
donated  to  the  Government,  it  will  be  seen  that  of  the  6,111  acres, 
5,129,  or  five-sixths  of  the  whole,  were  a  gift  to  the  Government. 
Thus  the  United  States,  without  cost,  not  only  secured  the  streets, 
avenues  and  alleys  and  the  sites  and  grounds  for  the  Capitol  and 
other  public  buildings,  but,  in  addition,  received  a  large  amount  of 
money  from  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  building  lots  appor¬ 
tioned  to  it. 

This  gift  to  the  nation  by  the  people  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
was  pronounced  by  Thomas  Jefferson  “really  noble.” 

In  consideration  of  this  gift  it  was  understood  by  all  parties  that 
the  property  of  the  citizens  was  not  to  be  taxed ;  and  it  was  so  adver¬ 
tised  not  only  at  home  but  abroad,  as  shown  by  Winterbotham’s 
History  of  the  United  States,  published  in  London  in  1796,  which,  in 
speaking  of  this  gift  to  the  Government,  says: 


“This  grant  will  produce  about  15,000  lots,  and  will  be  sufficient 
not  only  to  erect  the  public  buildings,  but  to  dig  the  canal,  conduct 
water  through  the  city,  and  to  pave  and  light  #ie  streets,  which  will 
save  a  heavy  tax  that  arises  in  other  cities,  and  consequently  render 
the  lots  considerably  more  valu»^^  ” 


3 


It  was  also  clearly  understood  by  all  that  the  Government  was 
to  open  the  streets  and  make  all  the  improvements  aside  from  private 
residences.  It  was  so  understood  by  Washington,  Jefferson  and  the 
Commissioners,  as  well  as  by  the  citizens.  Washington,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Commissioners,  said : 

‘When  you  are  in  a  situation  to  begin  the  opening  of  the  avenues, 
it  is  presumed  those  which  will  be  more  immediately  useful  will  be 
first  cleared.’’ 

Jefferson,  in  1801,  in  a  letter  to  the  Commissioners,  said: 

“I  consider  the  erection  of  the  Representatives  Chamber,  and  the 
making  of  a  good  gravel  road  from  the  new  bridge  on  the  Rock 
Creek  along  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  Avenues  to  the  Eastern 
Branch,  as  the  most  important  objects  for  insuring  the  destinies  of 
the  city  v;hich  can  be  undertaken” ;  and  in  his  message  to  Congress 
in  1802,  Jefferson  spoke  of  the  lots  as  being  “sufficient  to  meet  certain 
demands,  and  insure  a  considerable  surplus  to  the  city  to  be  employed 
in  its  improvement,”  and  suggested  that  the  sale  of  the  lots  be  not 
forced  beyond  the  demand  for  them  “lest  the  residuary  interest  of  the 
city  be  entirely  lost.” 

The  city  was  designed  as  the  capital  of  a  great  nation — one  in 
which  every  citizen  of  the  nation  was  to  have  an  interest,  and  in  which 
all  would  have  a  national  pride. 

It  was  always  spoken  of  by^the  authorities  as  “The  Federal  City,” 
the  “seat  of  the  National  Government,”  and  for  years  while  erecting 
the  public  buildings,  the  original  Commissioners  in  their  reports  al¬ 
ways  spoke  of  it  as  belonging  to  the  Government,  and  in  their  accounts 
referred  to  the  funds  received  and  disbursed  as  “the  city  fund.” 
Nothing  is  more  conspicuous  in  all  the  early  utterances  of  our  Presi¬ 
dents  and  public  men  than  their  insistence  upon  the  nationality  and 
the  permanence  of  the  city  of  Washington  as  the  capital. 

In  his  address  at  the  Citizens’  Dinner,  given  in  the  city  of  Wash¬ 
ington,  May  8,  1909,  President  Taft  voiced  the  same  idea.  He  said 
on  that  occasion,  in  part: 

“I  am  a  nationalist.  This  city  is  the  home  of  the  government 
of  a  nation,  and  when  men  who  were  just  as  much  imbued  with  the 
principles  of  civil  liberty  as  any  who  have  come  after,  Washington  at 
the  head,  put  into  the  Constitution  the  provision  with  reference  to  the 
government  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  they  knew  what  they  were 


I 


4 


doing  and  spoke  for  a  coming  possible  eighty  millions  of  people  who 
should  insist  that  the  home  of  the  Government  of  that  eighty  millions 
of  people  should  be  governed  by  the  representatives  of  that  eighty 
millions  of  people.  Washington  intended  this  to  be  a  Federal  City, 
and  it  is  a  Federal  City,  and  it  tingles  down  to  the  feet  of  every  man, 
whether  he  comes  from  Washington  State,  or  Los  Angeles,  or  Texas, 
when  he  comes  and  walks  these  city  streets  and  starts  to  feel  that 
this  is  my  city;  I  own  a  part  of  this  capital,  and  I  envy  for  the  time 
being  those  who  are  able  to  spend  their  time  here.” 

Speaking  of  the  grants  made  by  the  citizens  to  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of 
Van  Ness  vs.  the  city  and  the  United  States,  4  Peters  62,  says: 

'‘The  grants  were  made  for  the  foundation  of  a  Federal  City, 
and  the  public  faith  was  necessarily  pledged,  when  the  grants  were 
accepted,  to  found  such  a  city.  The  very  agreement  to  found  a  city 
was  of  itself  a  most  valuable  consideration  for  these  grants.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  must  have  been  as  obvious  that  Congress  must  forever 
have  an  interest  to  protect  and  aid  the  city.  The  city  was  designed 
to  last  in  perpetuity,  capitoli  immobile  saxum.'' 

The  obligation  thus  created,  owing  to  the  poor  financial  condition 
of  the  Government  at  that  time,  was  not  carried  out  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  as  agreed. 

As  the  Government  had  not  the  means  to  push  the  w'ork,  and  as 
'‘the  city  fund”  had  been  used  up,  the  citizens,  of  their  owm  accord, 
under  authority  of  Congress,  began  to  improve  the  streets  and  ave¬ 
nues,  and  for  that  purpose  not  only  taxed  themselves,  but  the  city 
also  borrowed  money  from  foreign  capitalists,  which  it  was  unable 
to  pay,  and  in  1835  appealed  to  Congress  for  relief.  In  their  report 
to  the  Senate  on  this  subject,  after  a  full  review  of  all  the  circum¬ 
stances,  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  of  which  Senator 
Southard  was  Chairman,  used  the  following  language: 

“The  Committee  deem  it  proper,  in  the  first  place,  to  state  that, 
in  the  investigation  of  the  causes  which  have  led  to  the  embarrassed 
condition  of  the  city,  they  have  not  found  reason  to  rebuke  and  con¬ 
demn  the  imprudence  or  extravagance  of  the  inhabitants  and  the  city 
authorities  to  the  extent  which  they  had  anticipated.  They  have,  it 
is  believed,  in  some  instances,  been  misled  into  expenditures  which  did 
not  appropriately  belong  to  them,  but  the  views  by  which  they  were 
governed  were  of  a  liberal  and  public-spirited  character.  Such  has 
been  the  fact  in  relation  to  the  streets.  The  committee  do  not  find 


r» 

0 


in  their  conduct  anything  which  should  excite  in  Congress  a  reluctance 
to  come  to  their  relief.  The  first  cause  of  embarrassment  to  which 
the  attention  of  the  committee  was  directed  w'as  the  expense  incurred 
in  the  opening  and  repair  of  the  streets.  The  plan  of  the  city  is  one 
of  unusual  magnitude  and  extent.  The  avenues  and  streets  are  very 
wide,  and  for  the  number  of  the  inhabitants  much  greater  in  dis¬ 
tance  than  those  of  any  other  city  on  this  continent,  and  necessarily 
require  a  proportionate  expenditure  to  make  and  keep  them  in  repair. 
And  as  the  city  has  not  grown  in  the  usual  manner,  but  has  neces¬ 
sarily  been  created  in  a  short  space  of  time,  the  pressure  for  the 
public  improvements  has  been  alike  sudden  and  burdensome. 

“The  population  is  but  little  more  than  20,000,  of  whom  near^)^ 
7,000  are  people  of  color  and  slaves,  and  a  large  number  are  tem¬ 
porary  residents  connected  with  the  Government.  The  avenues  vary 
from  120  to  160  feet  in  width;  the  streets  from  80  to  147 ;  the  average 
being  about  90  feet. 

“The  avenues  and  streets  which  have  to  be  opened  and  repaired 
to  fill  up  the  plan  of  the  city  embrace  a  distance  of  more  than  60 
miles.  Upon  the  streets,  then,  has  been  expended  since  the  year  1800 
an  average  annual  sum  of  not  less  than  $13,000,  exclusive  of  a  nearly 
equal  amount  assessed  upon  the  inhabitants  for  the  pavements,  gut¬ 
ters,  etc.,  a  sum  enormous  in  its  amount  when  the  character  and  re¬ 
sources  of  the  population  and  their  scattered  position  and  the  other 
improvements  which  they  have  been  compelled  to  make  are  considered. 
While  this  burden  from  the  streets  was  upon  them  and  within  the 
short  period  since  the  city  was  founded,  they  have  been  compelled  to 
create  their  market  houses,  infirmaries,  pumps,  wells,  lamps,  fire  en¬ 
gines  and  houses,  pay  their  proportion  for  country  roads,  and  the  ex¬ 
penses  of  their  police,  etc. 

“The  expenditure  upon  the  streets  under  these  circumstances  has 
unquestionably  been  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  the  embarrassment 
of  the  city  and  the  committee  believe  that  it  is  one  which  ought  not 
to  have  been  thrown  on  the  inhabitants  to  the  extent  which  it  has 
been.  They  found  this  opinion  upon  the  early  history  of  the  city, 
the  object  of  the  nation  in  its  establishment,  and  the  contracts  made 
by  the  Government  for  the  land  which  it  possesses  within  its  limits. 

“The  plan  of  the  city  was  formed  by  the  public  authorities ;  the 
dimensions  of  the  streets  determined  by  them,  without  interference 
by  the  inhabitants  or  regard  to  their  particular  interest  or  convenience. 

It  is  a  plan  calculated  for  the  magnificent  capital  of  a  great  nation, 
but  oppressive,  from  its  very  dimensions  and  arrangements,  to  the  in¬ 
habitants,  if  its  execution  to  any  considerable  extent  is  to  be  thrown 
upon  them.  No  people  who  anticipated  the  execution  and  subsequent 
support  of  it  out  of  their  own  funds  would  ever  have  dreamed  of 
forming  such  a  plan.  It  would  have  been  the  most  consummate 
folly. 


6 


'‘At  that  period  neither  the  Government  nor  the  proprietors  con¬ 
templated  that  the  whole  or  even  a  large  proportion  of  the  burden 
should  be  thrown  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  city.  This  assertion  is 
amply  sustained  by  two  considerations.  In  the  first  place,  the  con¬ 
tract  between  the  Government  and  the  owners  of  the  land  gave  to  the 
former  a  large  extent  of  public  lots,  sufficient  for  all  the  edifices  and 
improvements  which  its  conveniences  could  require,  and,  in  addition 
thereto,  one-half  of  all  the  building  lots  within  the  limits  of  the  city, 
thus  making  the  nation  itself  an  equal  owner  of  all  the  private  prop¬ 
erty,  and  equally  interested  for  the  benefit  of  this  private  property  in 
all  the  improvements  which  might  be  made.  In  the  next  place,  the 
Government  assumed,  and  from  that  day  to  the  present  has  claimed 
and  exercised,  entire  and  absolute  control  over  all  the  streets  of  the 
city,  so,  that  the  inhabitants  or  the  corporate  authorities  have  no 
power  either  to  enlarge  or  to  diminish  them  nor  to  open  or  close 
them ;  but  the  authority  in  these  respects  has  been  exercised  at  all 
times  by  Congress.  It  has  even  closed  one  of  the  streets  and  sold  the 
ground  which  formed  a  part  of  it. 

'Tt  could  not  have  entered  into  the  contemplation  of  anyone  at 
the  date  of  the  contract,  nor  can  it  now  be  regarded  as  either  reason¬ 
able  or  just,  that  the  city  should  bear  the  expense  of  streets  the  prop¬ 
erty  and  control  of  which  was  so  absolutely  in  the  Government,  and 
more  than  one-half  of  the  land  adjacent  to  which  belong  to  it,  and 
must  be  increased  in  value  by  their  improvement.  The  committee  are 
of  opinion  that  the  Government  was  bound  by  every  principle  of 
equal  right,  and  justice  to  pay  a  proportion  of  the  expense  incurred 
upon  this  subject,  equal  to  the  amount  of  the  property  which  it  held, 
and  which  was  to  be  increased  in  value  and  benefited  by  it;  and  this 
would  have  been  greatly  more  than  one-half.  If  the  streets  are  its 
property  and  to  be  regarded  as  altogether  under  its  control,  it  is  not 
easy  to  perceive  why  it  should  call  upon  or  permit  others  to  keep  that 
property  in  order;  and  if  the  streets  are  to  be  regarded  as  for  the 
joint  convenience  of  the  Government  and  the  inhabitants  the  expense 
of  maintaining  them  should  be  joint  and  in  proportion  to  their  re¬ 
spective  interests. 

“The  anticipation  of  all  parties  at  the  date  of  the  contract  and 
for  some  time  subsequent  was  that  the  property  acquired  by  the 
Government  would,  under  its  management  and  favorable  auspices,  be 
immensely  productive,  enabling  it  to  secure  perfect  accommodations 
'for  itself,  and  ‘insure  a  considerable  surplus  to  the  city,  to  be  em¬ 
ployed  in  its  improvement.’  The  city  was  regarded  as  having  ‘the 
residuary  interest’  in  the  property,  an  interest,  to  which  it  then  looked 
with  hope  and  confidence,  and  which  was,  by  proper  arrangements,  to 
be  ‘saved.’  If,  under  these  circumstances,  it  has  happened  that  these 
expectations,  created  by  the  action  and  avowed  purposes  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  have  been  disappointed,  if  the  city  has  too  freely  expended 


7 


its  resources  on  its  own  improvement,  and  if  it  be  now  severely  em¬ 
barrassed,  however  it  may  be  decided  by  some  that  it  can  not  claim, 
from  the  strict  letter  of  the  contract  and  the  rigid  justice  of  the  nation, 
an  interference  to  relieve  all  its  embarrassments,  yet  it  ought  not  to  be 
regarded  as  inexcusably  importunate  when  it  asks  for  their  alleviation. 

“There  has  been  appropriated  for  the  streets  and  paid  out  of  the 
city  treasury  the  sum  of  $429,971,  and  in  addition  to  this  very  large 
sum  it  is  a  low  estimate  to  say  that  not  less  than  $200,000  have  been 
paid  by  the  inhabitants  for  the  improvements  of  the  streets  in  various 
directions.  Previous  to  the  year  1830,  there  had  been  106,371  running 
feet  of  pavement  laid,  besides  the  curbstones  and  paved  gutters,  and 
paid  for  by  special  taxes  upon  the  lots,  to  which  the  building  lots  of 
the  Government  had  contributed  no  part,  although  they  derived  an 
equal  benefit  therefrom.  While  this  has  been  done  the  Government 
and  nation  have  expended  upon  their  own  streets,  which  they  formed 
for  their  own  purposes  and  to  answer  their  own  objects,  in  which 
they  have  the  exclusive  property,  over  which  they  have  exercised  un¬ 
limited  control,  and  which  they  may  close  and  sell  at  pleasure,  only 
$208,925 ;  and  the  whole  of  this  sum,  with  the  exception  of  about 
$10,000,  has  been  devoted  to  the  Pennsylvania  Avenue  and  the  streets 
immediately  around  and  adjoining  the  Capitol  and  President’s  squares 
alone,  the  improvement  of  which  was  indispensable  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment  itself  and  promotive  of  its  own  interest,  in  the  convenience  of  its 
officers  and  the  transaction  of  the  public  business. 

“Congress  has  expended  nothing  except  upon  streets  which  ad¬ 
join  the  public  squares,  and  even  upon  such  has  only  made  some  pave¬ 
ments  and  walks  and  set  out  some  trees  along  the  squares,  leaving 
the  rest  of  the  expense  of  even  those  streets  to  be  borne  by  the  city. 
While,  on  the  other  hand,  the  city  has  not  only  expended  its  money 
on  the  streets  wherever  the  population  was  scattered  over  its  immense 
area,  but  has  especially  opened  and  improved  those  leading  to  the 
national  establishments  at  the  navy  yard  and  arsenal  and  those  lead¬ 
ing  to  and  around  the  public  squares  and  reservations  belonging  to 
the  nation,  and  thus,  by  its  own  means,  enhanced  the  value  of  the 
public  property. 

“The  committee  believe  that  the  expenditure  for  this  object  by 
the  Government  has  been  nothing  more  than  its  duty  and  interest 
demanded,  and  that  it  ought  to  have  been  made  without  reference  to 
any  interest  or  convenience  but  its  own.  While  they  do  not  think  that 
the  city  was  bound  to  expend  the  money  of  the  inhabitants  upon  the 
streets  which  the  nation  claimed  and  regulated,  they  believe  the  nar¬ 
rowest  measure  of  justice  would  have  required,  and  does  now  require, 
that  the  Government  having  in  its  private  building  lots  and  public 
reservations  at  least  an  equal  interest  in  the  improvement  of  the 
streets,  should  pay  at  least  one-half  of  the  expense  of  those  streets 
and  that  one-half  of  the  money  expended  by  the  city  for  this  purpose 


8 


ought  nozv  to  be  refunded  to  it,  being  $214,965.  Should  this  sum  be 
appropriated  by  Congress,  the  city  will  receive  only  the  principal 
money,  and  unless  interest  be  paid  upon  it  it  will  still  lose  many 
thousand  dollars.  The  committee  therefore  conclude  that  Congress 
ought  to  make  an  appropriation  to  reimburse  to  the  city  the  amount 
of  money  wich  it  has  expended  for  the  benefit  of  the  Government. 

‘Tn  making  this  appropriation  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  Congress 
to  take  from  the  Treasury  of  the  nation  a  single  dollar  which  has 
been  derived  from  any  one  of  all  the  sources  of  revenue  to  which  the 
people  of  the  Union  contribute.  The  Government  has  already  re¬ 
ceived  from  the  property  which  it  acquired  by  contract  with  owners 
of  the  soil  a  much  larger  amount,  as  will  be  hereafter  stated  in  this 
report. 

“The  committee  cannot  consider  the  fact  that  the  city  has  volun¬ 
tarily  and  perhaps  incautiously  expended  money  upon  the  streets  of 
the  nation  without  the  requirement  of  Congress  as  furnishing  any 
objection  to  refunding  the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  money  which  the 
Government  ought  in  the  first  instance  to  have  paid.  The  city  may 
have  gone  further  in  this  matter  than  the  necessities  or  convenience 
of  the  Government  may  for  the  time  being  have  required ;  and  there 
might,  perhaps,  with  some  propriety,  be  some  deduction  in  that  ac¬ 
count;  but  the  expenditures  were  made  with  the  generous  purpose  of 
increasing  the  public  accommodation  and  rendering  the  capital  of 
the  country  what  it  ought  to  be,  as  well  as  to  augment  equally  the 
property  held  by  the  individual  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  by  the 
Government  itself,  and  the  improvements  which  it  has  made  have 
greatly  enhanced  both. 

“The  committee  is  not  aware  that  any  prevalent  objections  have 
been  made  to  the  manner  in  which,  nor  the  extent  to  which,  the  streets 
have  been  opened  and  improved.  The  whole  seems  to  have  been 
properly  done,  and  with  a  just  regard  to  economy  and  the  wants  of 
the’  inhabitants. 

“There  is  another  consideration  which  strengthens  the  view  the 
committee  take  upon  this  point.  The  immense  property  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  which  has  been  thus  benefited  has  been  at  all  times  free  from  tax¬ 
ation,  while  the  property  of  individuals,  adjoining  to  it,  has  been 
subject  thereto.  In  several  of  the  States  of  the  Union  where  the 
Government  holds  landed  estate  it  has  paid  taxes  upon  it,  and  these 
taxes  have  been  expended  for  the  ordinary  municipal  purposes  of  the 
places  where  the  property  was  situated.  In  the  city  of  Washington  the 
case  has  been  directly  reversed.  Holding  here  more  property  than 
anyone  else,  it  has  been  subject  to  no  imposition  of  this  kind. 

“In  the  acts  of  incorporation,  which  give  to  the  city  a  partial  con¬ 
trol  and  regulation  over  the  streets,  there  is  no  exemption  of  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  the  Government  from  taxation ;  and  it  might,  perhaps,  be 
properly  inferred  that  Congress  did  not  intend  that  it  should  be  ex¬ 
empted,  but  that  it  should  be  equally  subject  to  those  burdens  which 


9 


became  necessary  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  whole.  But  the  cor¬ 
porate  authorities  have,  with  prudence  and  propriety,  abstained  from 
levying  taxes  upon  it,  and  have  laid  the  whole  weight  upon  that  part 
of  the  property  which  belonged  to  individuals,  while  the  Government 
has  been  equally  participant  in  the  benefits,  which  have  resulted  from 
them.  The  assessments  have  been  regularly  made  upon  all,  public  and 
private  alike,  but  the  taxes  have  been  collected  only  from  the  private 
holders  of  property.  *  *  * 

“It  has  been  before  stated  that  the  avenues  and  streets  were  trans¬ 
ferred  without  any  pecuniary  compensation  therefor  being  made  by 
the  Government.  The  reservations  of  ground  for  public  use  consist  of 
17  entire  squares  or  large  sections  in  various  parts  of  the  city,  and 
contain  541  acres,  1  rod,  and  39  perches  of  land.  On  some  of  these  the 
Capitol,  President’s  House,  and  other  public  buildings  have  been  erect¬ 
ed.  The  rest  of  them  are  either  open  and  unoccupied  or  have  been 
devoted  to  public  uses,  according  to  the  discretion  of  Congress  upon 
the  subject. 

“For  this  large  extent  of  land,  equal  to  all  its  present  and  pros¬ 
pective  wants,  the  Government  paid,  nominally,  the  sum  of  $36,099 
to  the  proprietors  of  the  soil ;  but  in  reality  nothing.  This  sum  was 
not  drawn  from  the  general  Treasury,  nor  one  cent  of  it  contributed 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  whole  of  it  was  taken  out  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  building  lots,  which  had  also  been 
secured  by  the  Government  in  the  contract  with  the  landowners.  It 
thus  appears  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  paid  nothing 
for  all  their  public  lots,  nor  for  the  property  in  the  streets.  They  pro¬ 
cured  them,  and  now  own  them,  without  the  expenditure  of  a  single 
dollar. 

“In  the  investigation  of  the  subject  committed  to  them,  and  of 
the  relief  to  be  proposed,  the  committee  have  been  unable  to  separate 
the  interests  of  the  District  from  the  interests  of  the  United  States. 
They  regard  it  as  the  child  of  the  Union — as  the  creation  of  the  Union 
for  its  omn  purposes.  The  design  of  the  Constitution  and  its  founders 
was  to  create  a  residence  for  the  Government  where  they  should  have 
absolute  and  unlimited  control  which  should  be  regulated  and  governed 
by  them  without  the  interference  of  partial  interests  in  the  States, 
which  should  be  built  up  and  sustained  by  their  authority  and  re¬ 
sources,  not  dependent  upon  the  will  or  resources  of  any  State  or  local 
interest. 

“In  accomplishing  their  object  the  Union  undertook  the  guardian¬ 
ship  of  the  District,  deprived  its  inhabitants  of  the  right  of  self- 
government  and  of  the  elective  franchise,  and  made  them  dependent 
upon  the  will  of  the  representatives  of  the  States,  to  whom  alone  they 
can  look  for  relief.’* 


10 


THE  ORGANIC  ACT. 

Congress,  in  1878,  after  carefully  considering  the  relations  be¬ 
tween  the  Federal  Government  and  the  District  Government,  adopted 
and  passed  an  Act  prescribing  a  permanent  form  of  government  for 
the  District. 

Speaking  of  this  Act,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  case  of  Eckloff  vs.  District  of  Columbia,  135  U.  S.,  240, 
said : 


“The  Court  below  placed  its  decision  on  what  we  conceive  to  be 
the  true  significance  of  the  Act  of  1878.  As  said  by  that  Court,  it  is 
to  be  regarded  as  an  Organic  Act,  intended  to  dispose  of  the  whole 
question  of  government  for  this  District.  It  is,  as  it  were,  a  consti¬ 
tution  for  the  District.  It  is  declared  by  its  title  to  he  an  Act  to  pro¬ 
vide  a  permanent  form  of  government  for  the  District.  The  word 
permanent  is  suggestive.  It  implies  that  prior  systems  have  been  tem¬ 
porary  and  provisional.  As  permanent  it  is  complete  in  itself.  The 
powers  which  are  conferred  are  organic  powers.  We  look  to  the  Act 
itself  for  their  extent  and  limitations.  It  is  not  one  act  in  a  series 
of  legislation,  and  to  be  made  to  ht  into  the  provisions  of  the  prior 
legislation,  but  it  is  a  single  complete  act,  the  outcome  of  previous 
experiments,  and  the  final  judgment  of  Congress  as  to  the  system  of 
government  which  should  obtain.  It  is  the  constitution  of  the  District, 
and  its  grants  of  power  are  to  be  taken  as  new  and  independent  grants, 
and  expressing  in  themselves  both  their  extent  and  limitations.  Such 
was  the  view  taken  by  the  court  below,  and  such  we  believe  is  the 
true  view  to  be  taken  of  the  statute.” 

The  Organic  Act  contains,  among  other  things,  the  following : 

“To  the  extent  to  which  Congress  shall  approve  of  said  estimates 
[the  estimates  of  the  expenses  of  the  government  of  the  District, 
submitted  to  Congress  annually  by  the  District  Commissioners], 
Congress  shall  appropriate  the  amount  of  fifty  per  centum  thereof ; 
and  the  remaining  fifty  per  centum  of  such  approved  estimates  shall  be 
levied  and  assessed  upon  the  taxable  property  and  privileges  in  said 
District  other  than  the  property  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  Dis¬ 
trict  of  Columbia.” 

This  part  of  the  law  should,  at  all  times  and  in  all  things,  be  faith¬ 
fully  observed  and  obeyed,  both  in  letter  and  in  spirit.  Its  plain  mean¬ 
ing  is  that  the  United  States  should  pay  one-half  of  all  the  expenses  of 
the  District — the  permanent  seat  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  leaving  the  District  to  provide  the  remainder  by  taxation. 


11 


Such  a  financial  arrangement  between  the  United  States  and  the 
District  was  believed  to  be  wise  and  just,  and  was  made  to  insure 
the  proper  maintenance  and  development  of  the  National  Capital. 

The  arrangement  is  as  wise  and  just  to-day  as  it  was  in  1878,  and 
its  continuance  is  essential  to  the  District’s  welfare. 

On  May  22,  1896,  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  to  whomi  was  referred  a  Bill  (H.  R.- 
4448)  to  repeal  the  half  and  half  provisions  of  the  Organic  Act,  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  House  an  adverse  report  thereon,  in  which  they  made  the 
following  observations : 

'‘The  circumstances  under  which  the  National  Capitol  was  founded 
by  the  National  Government  for  its  own  use  created  an  equitable  ob¬ 
ligation  on  the  part  of  the  National  Government  to  share  the  expenses 
of  its  maintenance  and  development. 

“If  the  United  States  paid  taxes  on  its  property  at  the  same  rate 
that  the  citizens  do  theirs,  as  is  done  by  the  German  Government  in 
its  national  capital,  it  would  amount  to  considerably  more  than  it  ap¬ 
propriates.  To  be  strictly  just,  the  Government  ought  to  pay  its  half 
from  the  beginning;  and  if  it  were  to  do  that  it  would  extinguish  the 
present  District  debt,  nearly  all  of  which  was  created  by  officers  of 
the  United  States  Government,  acting  under  authority  of  Congress, 
and  not  by  the  citizens  of  the  District. 

“The  fact  that  the  nation,  which  at  the  beginning  took  title  by 
gift  to  five-sixths  of  the  area  of  the  national  capital,  still  owns  more 
than  half  in  value  of  the  real  estate  of  the  District,  irrespective  of  the 
streets,  of  which  it  holds  the  absolute  fee ;  and  the  fact  that  Congress 
still  exercises  the  power  of  exclusive  legislation  over  the  entire  Dis¬ 
trict  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Constitution,  combine  to  raise  a  fresh 
and  present  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  nation  in  respect  of  its 
capital,  independent  of  and  in  addition  to  the  equity  arising  from 
national  acts  and  representations  in  the  creation  of  the  city  and  District. 

“To  change  the  Act  of  1878,  as  proposed  by  this  bill,  would  be  a 
clear  repudiation  of  both  the  equitable  and  legal  obligations  assumed 
by  the  nation  in  regard  to  its  national  capital.  This  we  cannot  believe 
Congress  will  do.  A  repudiation  of  national  obligations  in  respect  to 
the  nation’s  city  would  result  either  in  a  discreditable  capital,  poorly 
sustained  by  reasonable  taxation  upon  local  resources,  or  in  the  virtual 
confiscation  of  local  property  through  excessive  taxation. 

“The  District  has  shared  in  every  national  tax  and  undergone 
special  national  burdens.  Since  the  enactment  of  the  internal  revenue 
law  in  1862,  the  District  has  paid  to  the  United  States  Government 
under  such  law  duties  to  the  amount  of  $7,815,830.80,  and  of  custom 
duties  during  the  last  ten  years  $557,799.  The  latter  figures,  it  should 
be  added,  represent  only  the  actual  amount  received  from  duties  at  the 


12 


custom-house  in  Georgetown,  the  port  of  entry  of  the  District  of  Co¬ 
lumbia.  It  is  estimated  that  only  about  5%  of  the  goods  imported  into 
the  District  pass  through  the  Georgetown  custom-house,  the  remaining 
95%  coming  through  other  ports  at  which,  of  course,  the  duties  are 
levied. 

“The  only  national  taxes  that  fall  directly  and  unmistakably  and 
in  ascertainable  amounts  upon  Americans  are  the  internal  revenue 
taxes.  The  States  and  Territories  which  have  contributed  in  1895 
less  internal  revenue  collections  to  the  National  Treasury  than  the 
District  of  Columbia  are  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Delaware,  Idaho,  Maine, 
Mississippi,  Montana,  Nevada,  North  Dakota,  Oregon,  South  Carolina, 
South  Dakota,  Utah,  Vermont,  Washington  and  Wyoming  (16  States)  ; 
and  Alaska,  Arizona,  Indian  Territory,  New  Mexico,  and  Oklahoma 
(5  Territories). 

“The  per  capita  contribution  of  the  District  of  Columbia  is  greater 
than  that  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Delaware,  Georgia,  Idaho, 
Iowa,  Kansas,  Maine,  Montana,  Mississippi,  Nevada,  North  Dakota, 
Oregon,  South  Dakota,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas,  Utah,  Ver¬ 
mont,  Washington  and  Wyoming  (22  States)  ;  and  Alaska,  Arizona, 
Indian  Territory,  New  Mexico  and  Oklahoma  (5  Territories). 

“The  District  of  Columbia  contributed,  1895,  in  internal  revenue 
taxation,  for  the  support  of  the  national  government  considerably  more 
than  the  combined  contributions  of  Maine,  Vermont,  Mississippi, 
Idaho,  Nevada,  North  Dakota,  Wyoming,  Arizona,  Indian  Territory, 
and  Alaska. 

“The  records  show  that  for  the  war  of  1812  the  citizens  of  the 
District  paid  a  direct  tax  of  $20,000  in  common  with  the  States; 
raised  a  voluntary  fund  of  $5,000  and  gave  it  to  the  President  to  de¬ 
fend  the  Capital ;  fitted  up  a  building  for  Congress  when  the  Capitol 
was  burned,  and  tendered  a  loan  of  $500,000  to  rebuild  the  public  build¬ 
ings,  which  Congress  authorized  the  President  to  accept. 

“The  record  further  shows  that  the  District  furnished  its  full 
share  of  volunteers  for  the  Mexican  war,  and  the  gallant  deeds  of 
some  of  her  sons  gave  to  their  names  a  world-wide  fame. 

“In  the  late  war  the  District  paid  $50,000  special  tax,  in  com¬ 
mon  with  the  States,  and  while  but  seven  of  the  loyal  States  even  filled 
their  quotas,  the  District  filled  hers  and  18^4  per  cent  more,  thus  ex¬ 
celling  every  State  of  the  Union  but  one ;  and  had  the  District’s 
“home  guard”  been  included,  as  it  was  there,  she  w'ould  have  excelled 
even  that  one.  The  first  volunteers  sworn  into  the  United  States  ser¬ 
vice  in  the  late  war  were  citizens  of  the  District,  and  to  this  day  they 
have  not  been  paid  for  their  equipments,  furnished  at  their  own  cost. 
No  bounty  for  volunteers  was  ever  paid  here. 

“Though  sharing  all  the  national  burdens,  the  District  has  not 
adequately  shared  in  the  distribution  of  national  land  and  money 
among  the  States  for  educational  and  other  purposes,  but  supports  its 
school  system  out  of  the  annual  revenues. 


13 


“While  the  General  Government  has  given  to  the  States  $28,- 
000,000  surplus  cash  from  the  Treasury,  and  for  public  schools,  uni¬ 
versities,  agricultural  colleges,  railroads  and  other  internal  improve¬ 
ment,  350,000,000  acres  of  the  public  lands,  its  financial  aid  to  the 
District  schools  has  been  comparatively  inconsiderable,  and  it  has  never 
given  to  the  District  an  acre  of  the  public  lands  for  these  purposes. 

“In  1890  Congress  provided  for  an  annual  appropriation  of 
$25,000  for  agricultural  and  mechanical  schools  for  each  State  and 
Territory,  but  excluded  the  District  from  any  share  therein. 

“A  large  number  of  the  pupils  in  the  public  schools  of  the  District 
reside  in  the  States  and  Territories.  All  Government  employees  and 
officials,  including  Senators  and  Representatives,  may  send  their  chil¬ 
dren  to  the  District  Schools,  and  many  avail  themselves  of  this  ad¬ 
vantage.  Congress  has  enacted  a  compulsory  law  imposing  a  fine  of 
$20  on  each  parent  or  guardian  for  failure  to  send  each  child  of  school 
age  to  school  twelve  weeks  each  year.” 

•  The  Committee  of  the  District  of  Columbia  concluded  its  able  ad¬ 
verse  report  on  the  bill  to  repeal  the  Organic  Act,  as  follows: 

“The  equitable  view  of  the  duty  of  the  general  Government 
(representing  the  whole  people)  toward  its  official  capital  is  still  fur¬ 
ther  re-enforced  by  the  example  of  other  great  nations.  Without 
room  for  details  we  merely  cite  the  fact  that  the  police  of  the  city  of 
London  costs  about  $5,500,000  a  year,  of  which  $2,250,000  is  paid  by 
parliamentary  grant  out  of  the  general  taxation  of  the  United  King¬ 
dom.  The  London  parks  are  appropriated  for  by  Parliam.ent  to  the 
amount  of  half  a  million  annually  and  much  larger  amounts  are  voted 
out  of  the  general  taxes  for  primary  and  high  education  in  the  London 
schools.  In  like  manner,  the  French  government  devotes  large  sums 
annually  to  a  share  of  the  vast  city  expenditures  of  Paris. 

“In  conclusion,  the  District  of  Columbia  asks  from  Congress  only 
justice,  and  not  favor.  Its  people  make  no  appeal  to  sympathy,  nor 
to  pride,  but  strong  in  the  equity  of  their  case,  as  here  presented,  they 
invoke  for  it  the  impartial  judgment  of  an  enlightened  Congress.  It 
is  said  that  no  other  city  has  half  its  expenses  paid  by  extraneous 
aid,  it  is  answered  that  no  other  city  has ^  to  maintain  a  magnificent 
capital  fit  to  be  the  political  metropolis  of  seventy  millions.  If  its 
financial  system  is  anomalous,  its  situation  and  its  obligations  are 
equally  anomalous.  The  only  child  of  the  Union,  as  Senator  South¬ 
ard  styled  it  sixty  years  ago,  was  never  so  worthy  as  now  of  its 
illustrious  parentage.  The  exclusive  legislation  of  the  American  Con¬ 
gress  surely  entails  upon  that  body  a  grave  responsibility,  and  all 
that  is  asked  is  that  the  relative  rights  and  obligations  of  the  Dis¬ 
trict  and  the  Government  may  be  discussed  and  decided  in  the  forum 
of  reason,  and  by  the  well-settled  principles  of  constitutional  laws.” 


14 


It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  United  States  is  continually 
condemning  real  estate  in  the  District  for  its  own  use,  thereby  re¬ 
ducing  the  list  of  taxable  property  therein. 

Proceedings  have  recently  been  begun  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  District  for  the  condemnation  of  twelve  squares  of  ground  for 
the  use  of  the  Government,  and  bills  have  been  introduced  in  Congress 
providing  for  the  condemnation  of  a  large  quantity  of  other  land  for 
public  use. 

Statistics  show  that,  at  the  present  time,  the  tax-paying  citizens 
of  the  District  of  Columbia  pay  about  $16  per  capita,  for  the  up-keep 
of  the  Nation’s  Capital,  while  the  other  ninety-two  million  citizens  of 
the  Nation  pay  only  cents  per  capita! 

VIEWS  OF  STATESMEN. 

To  the  foregoing  considerations  of  fact,  of  history,  and  of  com¬ 
parative  equity,  and  public  policy,  might  be  added  a  long  line  of  cor¬ 
roborative  testimony  from  the  recorded  judgments  of  public  men  in 
the  highest  places  of  the  nation.  Only  brief  selections  can  here  be 
made,  which,  however,  show  with  cumulative  weight  the  justice  of 
the  claim  that  the  city  of  Washington,  as  the  permanent  seat  of  a 
great  and  powerful  Government,  is  entitled  to  the  watchful  care  and 
generous  aid  of  that  Government. 

James  Madison  said  in  the  Federalist,  in  1788: 

“The  indispensable  necessity  of  complete  authority  at  the  seat 
of  government  carries  its  own  evidence  with  it.  This  consideration 
has  the  more  weight,  as  the  gradual  accumulation  of  public  im¬ 
provements  at  the  stationary  residence  of  government  would  be  too 
great  a  public  pledge  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  a  single  State.” 

In  1874,  after  the  extraordinary  and  expensive  improvements 
carried  out  by  the  Territorial  Government  led  to  an  investigation  by 
Congress,  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  through  Judge  Poland,  of 
Vermont,  its  chairman,  made  a  report  on  “the  legal  relations  between 
the  Federal  Government  and  the  local  government  of  the  District,  and 
the  extent  of  the  mutual  obligations  in  regard  to  municipal  expenses,’^ 
etc.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  that  able  report: 

“It  is  perfectly  manifest,  from  a  moment’s  examination  of  this 
plan,  that  a  city  was  laid  off  here  for  the  use  of  the  United  States 


15 


upon  a  scale  hitherto  unknown  in  this  or  any  other  country ;  upon 
a  plan  to  carry  out  which  would  inevitably  lead  to  an  expenditure 
entirely  beyond  the  requirement  of  a  city  for  business  purposes.  It 
was  a  plan  having  reference  peculiarly  to  the  wants  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  not  to  those  of  its  inhabitants;  its  streets  and  avenues,  in 
number,  length  and  width,  are  upon  a  scale  that  was  appropriate  for 
a  national  capital,  but  was  entirely  inappropriate  to  the  demands  of  a 
sparse  population  not  engaged  in  manufacturing  or  commerce,  and 
where  manufactures  and  commerce  were  not  encouraged  to  come. 

“There  is  something  revolting  to  a  proper  sense  of  justice  in  the 
idea  that  the  United  States  should  hold  free  from  taxation  more  than 
one-half  of  the  area  of  the  capital  city,  should  require  to  be  main¬ 
tained  a  city  upon  an  unusually  expensive  scale  from  which  the 
ordinary  revenues  derived  from  commerce  and  manufactures  are  ex¬ 
cluded  ;  that  in  such  a  case  the  burden  of  maintaining  the  expenses 
for  the  capital  should  fall  upon  the  resident  population. 

“A  very  large  proportion  of  this  population  are  temporary  resi¬ 
dents,  and  only  brought  here  to  serve  the  Government  in  various 
capacities. 

“They  acquire  no  permanent  interest  and  generally  hold  but  little 
property.  The  remaining  portion  of  the  population  is  made  up  chiefly 
of  persons  engaged  in  minor  trafiflc  and  in  supplying  the  wants  of 
the  Government,  of  themselves,  and  of  the  temporary  residents  re¬ 
ferred  to ;  so  that  there  is  absolutely  no  source  of  revenue  which  can 
be  looked  to  as  a  permanent  support  for  the  necessary  expenditures 
of  this  city.  Aside,  then,  from  all  question  of  sentiment  of  patriotism 
or  pride  in  the  national  capital  your  committee  are  impressed  with 
the  belief  that  the  Federal  Government  sustains  at  least  such  rela¬ 
tion  toward  the  citizens  and  the  local  government  as  would  require 
it  to  contribute  to  municipal  expenses  an  amount  bearing  the  re¬ 
lation  to  the  whole  amount  required,  which  the  interest  of  the  Federal 
Government  here  bears  to  the  interest  of  the  local  government;  and 
this  they  believe  to  be  at  least  one-half.” 

President  Grant,  in  his  message  of  December,  1873,  said : 

“The  city  of  Washington  is  rapidly  assuming  the  appearance  of 
a  capital  of  which  the  nation  may  well  be  proud.  From  being  a  most 
unsightly  place,  disagreeable  to  pass  through  in  summer  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  dust  arising  from  unpaved  streets,  and  almost  impassable 
in  the  winter  from  the  mud,  it  is  now  one  of  the  most  sightly  cities 
in  the  country.  The  Government  having  large  reservations  in  the 
city,  and  the  nation  at  large  having  an  interest  in  their  capital,  I 
recommend  a  liberal  policy  toward  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
that  the  Government  should  bear  its  just  share  of  the  expenses  of 
these  improvements.” 


16 


A  joint  special  committee  of  both  Houses,  in  1874,  to  investigate 
and  report  upon  the  whole  subject  of  the  conduct  of  District  affairs 
under  the  Territorial  government,  brought  in  the  bill  providing  for 
a  temporary  form  of  government  by  commission,  abolishing  the 
legislature,  governor,  and  board  of  public  works.  This  committee 
was  composed  of  Senators  William  B.  Allison,  Allen  G.  Thurman, 
and  William  M.  Stewart,  and  Representatives  Jeremiah  M.  Wilson, 
J.  A.  Hubbell,  Lyman  K.  Bass,  Hugh  J.  Jewett,  and  R.  Hamilton, 
recognized  as  among  the  strong  men  of  both  Houses.  Their  report 
recommended  the  equitable  division  of  expenditures  in  the  District 
between  the  Federal  Government  and  the  taxpayers,  on  the  basis  of 
one-half  to  each.  In  his  speech  upon  the  bill,  June  18,  1874,  Senator 
Thurman  said: 

“I  do  not  say  that  this  bill  is  perfect,  but  I  do  say  that  your 
committee,  after  four  months  of  such  toil  as  perhaps  was  never 
performed  by  any  committee  of  Congress,  have  unanimously  recom¬ 
mended  the  passage  of  the  bill.  There  was  not  a  dissenting  voice. 
They  did  it  with  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  after  the  most  care¬ 
ful  consideration,  and,  as  their  report  will  show,  after  a 
consideration  of  this  subject,  in  which  there  was  not  the  slightest 
partisanship  or  politics  whatever.  They  unanimously  adopted  this 
bill  and  recommended  it  to  the  two  Houses.  It  has  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives  with  but  23  dissenting  votes,  two  hundred  and 
odd  against  23 ;  and  I  do  hope,  Mr.  President,  unless  there  is  some 
great  and  overruling  necessity,  the  Senate  will  accept  the  bill  as  it 
passed  the  House. 

“I  do  know’,  temporary  as  it  is,  it  is  most  likely  to  be  beneficial 
in  its  effects ;  and  the  permanent  form  of  government  which  will  be 
provided  by  the  joint  committee  that  is  to  be  appointed  under  this 
bill  will  be  one,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  will  be  a  blessing  to  the  people 
of  this  District  and  will  be  a  benefit  to  the  whole  Union. 

‘T  know  very  well  that  there  are  difficulties  in  this  subject,  and 
you  can  not  take  a  step  without  meeting  with  a  difficulty.  We  have 
long  pondered  over  these  difficulties,  and  have  arrived  at  the  best  so¬ 
lution  of  them  that  we  could.  It  is  the  result  of  the  labors  of  eight 
,  men,  intent  upon  nothing  but  to  discharge  their  duties  faithfully 
to  benefit  this  people,  and  also  to  take  care  of  the  interests,  the  honor, 
and  the  reputation  of  the  United  States.” 

The  bill  reported  by  the  committee  passed  both  Houses  without 
serious  opposition,  and  without  an  order  for  the  yeas  and  nays.  It 
continued  the  law  for  the  District  government  until  June  11,  1878, 


17 


when  it  was  replaced  by  the  Organic  Act,  which  continued  in  force 
the  50  per  cent  division  of  expenditures  between  the  District  and  the 
United  States.  At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  Organic  Act,  two 
attempts  were  made  to  secure  amendments  reducing  the  Government’s 
proportion  of  the  expenses,  one  to  25  per  cent  (which  did  not  secure 
one-fifth  of  the  House),  and  a  second  proposing  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  should  pay  40  per  cent  and  the  District  60  per  cent  of  all 
expenditures.  This  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  92  yeas  and  134 
nays,  such  eminent  Democrats  as  Blackburn,  Culberson,  Forney,  Her¬ 
bert,  Kenna,  Knott,  Mills,  Singleton,  Swann,  Tucker,  and  Wood  vot¬ 
ing  against  the  40  per  cent  and  in  favor  of  the  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  Blackburn,  of  Kentucky,  who  had  charge  of  the  bill  in  the 
House,  spoke  as  follows.  May  7,  1878: 

“We  have  come  down  now  to  the  naked  question  as  to  the  pro¬ 
portion  of  the  expenses  of  this  District  which  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  should  bear.  This  bill  proposes  that  the  proportion  shall  be 
50  per  cent,  and  the  reasons  for  that  basis  of  calculation  have  been 
very  lucidly  stated  to  the  House. 

“The  people  of  the  District  have  the  right  to  demand  that  we 
shall  fix  permanently  their  relations  to  the  Federal  Government.  It 
is  the  Federal  Government  on  one  side  treating  with  the  Federal 
city  on  the  other.  The  people  of  this  District  have  a  right  to  pro¬ 
test  against  being  left  subject  to  the  whim  and  caprice  of  Congress 
with  each  recurring  session.  They  have  and  can  have  no  tangible 
value  to  their  real  estate  property.  Should  you  go  out,  any  one  of 
you,  to  purchase  a  piece  of  real  estate  in  the  city  of  Washington, 
naturally  you  would  ask  in  the  first  instance  to' what  taxation  it  was 
subject.  If  the  owner  is  an  honest  man  he  can  simply  reply  to  you 
that  he  does  not  know.” 

In  opposing  the  amendment  substituting  25  instead  of  50  per 
cent  as  the  proportion  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  Mr.  Black¬ 
burn  said: 

“The  amendment  proposes  that  the  Federal  Government  shall 
pay  25  per  cent  of  the  expenditures  of  this  District.  I  say  that  a 
careful  examination  of  the  interests  involved — of  the  relations  which 
exist  between  the  country  and  the  capital,  will  satisfy  any  unbiased 
mind  that  the  proposition  is  not  fair,  much  less  liberal.  I  admit  that 
the  people  of  this  District  are  at  your  mercy;  they  can  not  enforce 
their  rights,  even  if  it  is  admitted  they  have  any.  It  is  perfectly  com¬ 
petent  for  you  to  refuse  appropriations,  and  for  you  to  refuse  to 


18 


bear  any  proportion  of  the  expenses  of  the  District.  There  is  no 
appeal. 

“If  the  people  of  this  District  are  poverty  stricken;  if  they  are 
debt-ridden  and  taxation  burdened,  it  is  to  the  American  Congress 
they  are  indebted  for  this  curse.  Less  than  12  per  cent  of  the  debt 
that  now  bows  them  down  to  the  earth  was  fastened  upon  them  by 
rulers  of  their  own  choosing.  More  than  75  per  cent  of  the  debt 
they  are  carrying  now,  and  which  must  be  left  to  their  children  as  a 
heritage  of  bondage,  has  been  fixed  upon  them  by  agents  selected 
by  you  and  placed  over  them,  with  plenary  powers  to  dispose  of  their  \ 

property  by  legalized  confiscation  or  plunder.  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  acting  through  its  Congress  is  alone  responsible.” 

Mr.  Hendee,  of  Vermont,  said : 

“I  have  looked  up  the  statistics,  and  up  to  the  present  time  the 
people — remember,  the  people  of  the  District  of  Columbia — have  paid 
over  $30,000,000  in  improving  the  streets  in  this  city  and  other 
property,  while  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  not  paid 
$9,000,000.  That  is  the  proportion  as  it  stands  to-day ;  and  now  I 
want  to  know  if  there  is  an  element  even  in  this  House  that  will  say 
to  the  people  of  this  country  that,  although  owning  half  the  property, 
the  Government  will  refuse  to  pay  its  share  of  the  taxes  to  take  care 
of  that  property  ?  Shame  on  such  an  idea  !” 

Mr.  Lapham,  of  New  York,  subsequently  Senator  from  that 
State,  said : 

“It  is  niggardly  parsimony  on  our  part  to  propose  to  pay  one- 
fourth  of  the  annual  expenses  of  improving  this  District,  in  which 
is  located  the  seat  of  our  National  Government.  It  should  be  re¬ 
membered  that  the  territory  of  this  District  was  set  apart  for  the 
national  capital,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  the  expenditure  of  the 
money  made  here  is  made  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  health 
and  comfort  of  the  Representatives  of  the  people,  who  are  here  for  , 

a  great  portion  of  the  year;  of  the  executive  officers,  the  heads  of 
Departments,  the  representatives  of  foreign  Governments,  and  the 
vast  number  of  employees  in  the  Departments,  who  make  it  a  per¬ 
manent  residence.  They  are  all  interested  in  having  a  healthy  at¬ 
mosphere,  in  having  good  drainage  and  sewerage,  and  having  every¬ 
thing  which  will  promote  their  comfort  and  the  health  of  this  city  as 
a  residence. 

“They  should  be  provided  for  in  these  respects  at  the  expense 
of  the  nation,  and  surely  the  practice  which  has  hitherto  prevailed 
of  the  General  Government  contributing  one-half  of  the  quota  of 
this  expense,  coupled  with  the  reservation  in  this  act  that  Congress 
shall  at  all  times  have  supreme  control  over  the  amount  to  be  ex- 


19 


pended,  it  seems  to  me,  relieves  this  case  of  any  danger  so  far  as 
burdens  on  the  Treasury  are  concerned.” 

Mr.  Garfield,  of  Ohio,  spoke  on  the  question  of  the  power  of 
Congress,  as  follows : 

“The  Supreme  government  of  the  District  is  vested  in  the  gen¬ 
eral  Government,  and  we  by  lav/  can  point  out  whether  the  Presi¬ 
dent  can  appoint  these  Commissioners  or  not.  There  is  some  doubt 
whether  we  can  authorize  the  people  to  elect  them.  The  question 
was  raised  when  we  had  the  old  District  of  Columbia,  whether  we 
could  delegate  any  powers  to  anybody  else  to  legislate  for  this  Dis¬ 
trict.  Mr.  Hoar,  who  was  then  on  the  District  Committee,  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  we  had  made  a  mistake  and  transcended  our 
powers  when  we  conferred  upon  any  other  body  than  Congress  the 
power  to  legislate  for  this  District.  That  line  of  reasoning  seems 
to  me  to  lead  to  the  doctrine  that  we  could  not  establish  here  any¬ 
thing  like  a  legislative  government  in  the  District.  If  we  could 
empty  this  Hall  and  the  Senate  Chamber  altogether  of  the  burdens 
of  the  duty  of  legislating  for  the  District,  I  should  be  glad,  for  the 
District  finds  Congress  a  stepmother  in  all  its  works  of  legislation.” 

Mr.  B.  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts,  said : 

“I  want  to  say  a  word  about  the  streets  and  avenues  of  this  city. 
I  want  to  call  to  the  attention  of  gentlemen  a  piece  of  history.  Why 
were  these  immense  avenues  laid  out?  History  tells  us  that  this  Dis¬ 
trict  was  about  to  be  laid  out  by  Washington  at  the  time  when  a  mob 
of  Paris  was  overawing  the  national  assembly  of  France  by  erecting 
barricades  across  the  narrow  streets  of  Paris.  That  was  brought  to 
the  attention  of  George  Washington,  and  in  order  to  prevent  that  in 
the  great  future,  he  made  these  wide  avenues  radiating  from  the 
places  where  the  public  buildings  were  to  be  erected,  so  that  it  would 
be  impossible  ever  for  a  mob  of  this  city  to  barricade  and  overawe  and 
imprison  the  National  Legislature  or  the  President.  There  is  no 
place  near  the  public  buildings  as  they  were  planned  by  Washington 
where  a  troop  of  horses  can  not  charge  five  different  ways  into  a 
square,  if  necessary.  And  the  great  streets  which  impose  these  heavy 
burdens  upon  the  people  are  simply  a  proper  precautionary  measure 
of  the  general  Government  in  having  the  capital  here,  and  have  no 
sort  of  relation  to  the  convenience,  the  commercial  prosperity,  or 
the  commercial  uses  of  the  people  of  the  District,  and  therefore  we 
ought  to  pay  for  them.  They  are  for  the  use  of  the  nation.  It  is 
unfair  to  the  people  of  the  District  to  tax  them  for  these  avenues.” 

In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  thoroughly  discussed,  with  little  or 
no  objection  to  the  fixing  of  50  per  cent  as  the  proportion  of  District 


20 


expenses  to  be  borne  by  the  Government  and  the  citizens.  On  the 
contrary,  several  Senators,  notably  Senators  Whyte,  of  Maryland^ 
and  Bayard  of  Delaware,  took  strong  ground  in  behalf  of  the  pay¬ 
ment  by  the  United  States  of  a  larger  proportion. 

Senator  Bayard,  May  21,  1878,  used  the  following  language: 

“The  Government  of  the  United  States  owns  and  controls  a  vast 
portion  of  the  real  estate  of  the  District — that  is  to  say,  of  the  city 
portion  and  the  valuable  portion.  Washington  is  the  political  center 
of  the  entire  Union.  Representatives  from  every  State  and  Terri¬ 
tory  find  their  homes  here  during  the  sessions  of  Congress.  The 
agents  for  the  Federal  Government  in  all  its  executive  branches  find 
their  departments  of  labor  here,  and  all  persons  having  business 
throughout  the  United  States  in  connection  with  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  must  in  some  way  or  other  find  their  way  to  Washington.  This 
makes  it  a  Federal  city.  It  is  used  for  Federal  purposes. 

“How  many  people  in  the  city  of  Washington  use  these  expen¬ 
sive  avenues  and  streets,  upon  which  such  vast  sums  have  been  ex¬ 
pended  and  upon  which  such  large  expenditures  in  the  future  are 
made  necessary?  The  term  ‘floating  population’  will  apply  better 
to  those  who  live  here  than  in  any  other  place  of  which  I  have  knowl¬ 
edge.  I  suppose  that  a  much  larger  number  of  those  who  roll  so 
pleasantly  over  the  smooth  streets  of  this  city  are  people  who  pay 
no  taxes  whatever  in  it. 

“It  is  simply  absurd  to  suppose  that  this  little  town — for  that 
is  all  it  is — on  the  borders  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  can  be  main¬ 
tained  upon  the  scale  which  we  now  see  it  is,  at  such  an  expense  to 
the  local  inhabitants.  If  it  is  to  be,  as  I  think  it  ought  to  be,  a  Fed¬ 
eral  city  worthy  of  a  great  nation  whose  seat  of  Government  it  is,, 
then,  it  seems  to  me,  that  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  expense 
must  be  borne  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  not  by  the  local  in¬ 
habitants.  Is  it  just  that  one-half  the  expenses  of  these  broad  ave¬ 
nues,  of  these  extensive  improvements,  of  these  luxurious  streets  is 
to  be  borne  by  the  local  inhabitants?  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is 
unreasonable.  I  do  not  think  they  can  bear  it. 

“This  town  is  the  mere  center  and  habitation  of  the  employees 
of  the  Government — the  clerical  force  of  the  Departments — people 
who  are  swept  in  and  out  of  office  by  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  power 
of  political  parties — strangers  who  come  here  during  the  sessions  of 
Congress  for  a  few  days  or  a  few  weeks — or  Members  of  Congress, 
whose  interests  and  property  lie  entirely  elsewhere. 

“I  want  to  ask  the  honorable  .Senator  who  has  charge  of  this 
bill  whether  it  is  just  that  the  people  of  Washington  City  shall  pay 
the  proportion  of  one-half  of  this  expensive  government,  in  regard 
to  the  scale  of  which  they  never  were  consulted,  in  regard  to  which 
property  that  is  to  be  taxed  never  was  considered,  or  whether  the 


21 


fraction  should  not  be  much  less.  The  property  will  not  bear  it;  it  is 
not  worth  it.  If  it  is  to  be  paid,  it  must  be  paid  out  of  the  United 
States  Treasury,  from  which,  in  my  judgment,  it  ought  to  be  paid, 
because  the  laws  contracting  the  expense  and  authorizing  the  outlay 
were  passed  without  consultation  with  or  without  sufficient  consid¬ 
eration  in  any  way  for  the  people  whose  property  lies  here.  I  ask 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Kansas  whether  he  does  not  consider 
that  the  proportion  of  one-half  to  be  borne  by  the  people  of  this 
city  is  excessive,  and  whether  it  ought  not  to  be  less  even  than  one- 
fourth,  justly  considering  the  fact  that  the  expenses  of  governing  this 
town  are  chiefly  caused  for  the  entertainment  and  for  the  use  and 
convenience  of  a  non-resident  population  from  all  the  rest  of  the 
Union.  It  is  just  and  right  that  they  should  be  called  to  pay  one- 
half  the  expense  of  this  scale  of  adornment  and  improvement,  in¬ 
tended  not  half  so  much  for  their  use  and  delectation  as  for  the  use 
of  those  who  come  here  and  pass  away  after  a  few  weeks’  stay? 
I  submit  that  it  is  a  very  grave  and  very  fundamental  question  in 
this  bill,  whether  this  equal  division  of  the  expense  is  just  or  right.” 

Senator  Ingalls,  of  Kansas,  said : 

“The  United  States  of  America  have  not  expended  as  much  here 
as  they  received  from  the  sale  of  lots  here.  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  to-day  money  in  pocket  from  the  sales  of  property  in 
this  District  and  in  this  city.” 

Senator  Beck,  of  Kentucky,  said: 

“I  did  not  know  that,  either,  but  as  something  has  been  said 
about  the  value  of  our  property,  I  desire  to  say  to  the  Senator  from 
Kansas  that  I  have  consented  to  the  provision  requiring  Congress  to 
appropriate  money  to  pay  one-half  of  the  expenses,  and  that  surely 
is  liberal. 

“I  agree  to  pay  pretty  liberally  to  keep  up  everything  connected 
with  the  city,  but  I  do  want  the  power  and  the  responsibility  con¬ 
fined  to  the  Commissioners,  however  selected,  and  I  want  no  ex¬ 
traneous  board,  either  of  health  or  anything  else,  to  come  in  and  in¬ 
terfere  with  their  powers.  I  hope  the  President  will  succeed  in  se¬ 
lecting  the  very  best  men  he  can  find,  regardless  of  their  politics. 
Maybe  he  can  find  them  without  politics  altogether,  so  that  they  can 
come  to  this  end  or  to  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  and  have  justice 
done  to  the  city. 

“When  I  compare  the  city  as  it  was  ten  years  ago,  when  I  first 
came  to  Congress,  with  what  it  is  now, 'I  am  bound  to  say  I  would 
not,  with  my  limited  knowledge  of  such  things,  undertake  to  do  the 
work  for  twice  the  money  that  has  been  either  spent  upon  it  or 
squandered  upon  it.” 


22 


Senator  Edmunds,  of  Vermont,  said: 

“.This  bill  provides  for  the  United  States  paying  one-half  of  the 
expenses  of  carrying  on  the  government  of  the  District. 

“Half  the  money  comes  from  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States,  and  then  the  Constitution  itself  provides  that  this  District,  in 
which  nobody  is  a  resident  (except  those  in  jail)  without  his  free 
and  voluntary  consent,  shall  be  a  district  in  which  Congress  is  to 
exercise  exclusive  legislation.  Congress  is  the  legislative  power  of 
the  District,  and  that  Congress  is  the  Congress  of  the  whole  people. 
This  is  a  place  for  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States  to  have  an 
interest  in  and  to  take  care  of,  and  to  pay  the  expenses  of,  as  it 
does  now  by  this  proposition  to  the  extent  of  one-half,  and  in¬ 
directly  to  a  much  larger  degree.” 

Senator  Whyte,  of  Maryland,  formerly  Governor  of  that  State, 
took  the  following  view : 

“This  District  belongs  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  not 
to  the  people  that  have  happened  to  cluster  around  this  Capitol,  some 
to  be  fed  by  the  bounty  of  the  Government,  some  to  make  money 
out  of  the  temporary  inhabitants  who  come  here,  and  some  because 
it  is  a  pleasant  place  to  live  in  and  get  good  society  in,  and  to  come 
here  for  the  winter. 

“It  is  our  duty,  it  is  our  privilege,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States  that  its  Congress  shall  determine  what  is  right, 
what  is  proper,  what  is  good  for  the  government  of  the  District  of 
Columbia  within  the  line  as  it  now  stands,  and  therefore  these  people 
ought  not  to  be  represented  in  either  branch  of  Congress.  They  have 
no  right  to  be  represented  here.  We  represent  this  District.  It  is 
our  duty  to  take  charge  of  it ;  it  is  our  duty  to  legislate  for  it ;  it  is 
our  duty  to  make  officers  of  the  District  under  our  supreme  control, 
and  therefore  I  shall  vote  against  every  proposition  which  looks  to 
the  establishment  of  suffrage  in  this  District.  (The  proposition  to 
restore  suffrage  to  the  people  of  the  District  received  but  9  Sena¬ 
torial  votes,  against  40  in  the  negative.)  They  ought  to  contribute 
a  proportionate  part  of  the  expense — not  more — for  I  have  examined 
the  subject  with  great  care.  When  Congress  imposed  upon  me  dur¬ 
ing  my  absence,  the  duty  of  acting  as  one  of  a  commission,  under  a 
,  law  of  the  Forty-fourth  Congress,  I  took  the  trouble  to  examine, 
from  the  beginning,  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government,  down 
to  that  time,  what  the  relative  position  of  the  residents  of  the  Dis¬ 
trict  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  as  regards  property 
,  really  was ;  and  I  became  satisfied,  not  that  the  ratio  should  be  ac¬ 
cording  to  this  bill,  but  that  the  Government  ought  to  contribute  60 
per  cent  of  the  taxes  and  the  people  here  but  40  per  cent.  The  bill,  I 
think,  calls  for  half  and  half — 50  per  cent  from  each.” 


On  March  6,  1901,  Senator  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  speaking 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  in  regard  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  said: 

“It  seems  to  me  there  is  just  one  simple  principle  that  ought  to 
be  applied  to  the  residents  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  We  should 
ascertain  the  average  rate  of  taxation  in  well-ordered  American  cities, 
whether  it  be  $1  on  the  thousand,  or  $10  on  the  thousand,  or  $15  on 
the  thousand,  or  whatever  sum,  and  then  apply  that  to  the  personal 
property  and  real  estate  of  every  resident  here.  When  that  is  done, 
with  such  exemptions  as  experience  suggests  in  all  like  cases,  the 
Government  should  pay  the  rest  of  the  reasonable  expenses  of  this 
District.  I  do  not  think  that  having  one-half  paid  by  the  District  and 
one-half  paid  by  the  Government,  has  any  scientific  merit  whatever. 
There  is  nothing  in  reason  why  it  should  be  one-half  rather  than 
two-thirds  or  three-fourths.  The  Government  is  a  great  property 
owner  here,  and  the  credit  of  the  city  of  Washington  is  the  credit 
of  the  nation.  It  is  the  national  capital,  and  it  is  the  great  national 
interest  to  have  a  well-ordered  and  beautiful,  well-ornamented  and 
arranged  city  here. 

“The  com.plaint  that  the  Government  pays  a  part  of  the  taxes 
seems  to  me  to  have  no  foundation  in  reason  whatever.  The  Govern¬ 
ment  ought  to  pay  a  large  part  of  the  taxes.  The  people  here  do  not 
govern  their  own  city,  it  is  governed  by  the  Government.  The  pub¬ 
lic  property  here  is  enormous  in  amount.  It  seems  to  me  that  that 
is  the  only  fair  and  just  way  that  has  ever  been  suggested  that  I 
know  of. 

“Let  a  man  who  comes  here  to  dwell  pay  what  he  would  pay  in 
Providence  or  in  Dubuque,  and  when  he  has  done  that,  let  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  pay  the  rest  of  the  bills  and  spend  money  as  lavishly  or  as 
economicallv  as  it  mav  see  fit.” 


In  view  of  the  changes  made  from  time  to  time  in  the  personnel 
of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  has  com¬ 
piled  the  foregoing  facts  and  arguments,  in  order  that  matters 
arising  in  Congress  may  be  understood  and  passed  upon,  without 
an  examination  of  many  official  records  and  extended  discussions, 
covering  a  long  period  of  time. 

In  most  instances  the  views  expressed  are  those  of  men  of  large 
experience  and  long  residence  at  the  National  Capital. 


I 


V’ 


